Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004774

Paper

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Published Apr 9, 2024 · D. J. Ramos-Campo, Pedro J. Benito-Peinado, Luis Andreu-Caravaca

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Q1 SJR score

0

Citations

0

Influential Citations

Full textSemantic Scholar

Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Abstract Ramos-Campo, DJ, Benito-Peinado, PJ, Caravaca, LA, Rojo-Tirado, MA, and Rubio-Arias, JÁ. Efficacy of split versus full-body resistance training on strength and muscle growth: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1330–1340, 2024—No previous study has systematically compared the effect of 2 resistance training routines commonly used to increase muscle mass and strength (i.e., split [Sp] and full-body [FB] routines). Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare the effects on strength gains and muscle growth in healthy adults. 14 studies (392 subjects) that compared Sp and FB routines in terms of strength adaptations and muscle growth were included. Regarding the effects of the Sp or FB routine on both bench press and lower limbs strength, the magnitude of the change produced by both routines was similar (bench press: mean difference [MD] = 1.19; [−1.28, 3.65]; p = 0.34; k = 14; lower limb: MD = 2.47; [−2.11, 7.05]; p = 0.29; k = 14). Concerning the effect of the Sp vs. FB routine on muscle growth, similar effects were observed after both routines in the cross-sectional area of the elbow extensors (MD = 0.30; [−2.65, 3.24]; p = 0.84; k = 4), elbow flexors (MD = 0.17; [−2.54, 2.88]; p = 0.91; k = 5), vastus lateralis (MD = −0.08; [−1.82, 1.66]; p = 0.93; k = 5), or lean body mass (MD = −0.07; [−1.59, 1.44]; p = 0.92; k = 6). In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis provides solid evidence that the use of Sp or FB routines within a resistance training program does not significantly impact either strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Consequently, individuals are free to confidently select a resistance training routine based on their personal preferences.

Meta-Analysis

Study Snapshot

Split and full-body resistance training routines do not significantly impact strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated, allowing individuals to choose based on personal preferences.

PopulationOlder adults (50-71 years)

Sample size24

MethodsObservational

OutcomesBody Mass Index projections

ResultsSocial networks mitigate obesity in older groups.

Sign up to use Study Snapshot

Consensus is limited without an account. Create an account or sign in to get more searches and use the Study Snapshot.

Create an account

Paper

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Sign up to use Study Snapshot

References

Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume matched loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Higher loads lead to greater muscle strength gains, while muscle hypertrophy remains similar regardless of load magnitude when volume load is equated.

Split or full-body workout routine: which is best to increase muscle strength and hypertrophy?

Both split and full-body workout routines effectively increase muscle strength and hypertrophy, provided weekly set volume is equal.

Effects of training frequency on muscular strength for trained men under volume matched conditions

Increasing training frequency from two to four sessions under volume-equated conditions does not provide additional benefits in increasing maximal muscular strength, but spreading the total training volume into several bouts may help avoid potential increases in rate of perceived exertion.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The PRISMA 2020 guideline updates the 2009 one, reflecting advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, and simplifies implementation.

A Comparison Between Total Body and Split Routine Resistance Training Programs in Trained Men

Total body training may be better for maximal strength improvement, while split routine training may be more effective for muscle growth in experienced, resistance-trained men.

A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Resistance Training on Whole-Body Muscle Growth in Healthy Adult Males

Resistance training significantly increases muscle mass in healthy adult males, but excessive sets per workout negatively impact muscle mass gain.

The Effect of Resistance Training in Women on Dynamic Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Resistance training leads to significant improvements in muscular strength and hypertrophy in healthy adult females, with training volume and frequency being key influencing factors.

Similar Muscular Adaptations in Resistance Training Performed Two Versus Three Days Per Week

Training two or three days per week in trained men produces similar increases in muscular adaptations, but split-body training shows a potential benefit for muscle mass gains.

High Resistance-Training Frequency Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men.

High resistance-training frequency enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men, while strength gains remain similar across both training methods.

Citations